Tariff classification of plasticizers turns on commercial and technical understanding, not mere use with resins.

Commercial and technical understanding of imported goods governs tariff classification, and a product used as a plasticizer cannot be treated as a resin or plastic material merely because it is used with resins. The Supreme Court held that Santicizer 429 was described in technical literature as a plasticizer improving flexibility and workability, and it did not fall within the heading claimed by the department. It was therefore correctly classifiable under Heading 38.01/19(6) and not under Heading 39.01/06, so the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported product Santicizer 429 was classifiable as a plasticizer under Heading 38.01/19(6) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Heading 39.01/06 of that Act.

Analysis: The product was described in technical literature as a plasticizer used to improve flexibility and workability of resins. The decisive consideration in classification was the nature of the goods as understood in trade and in technical literature. Plasticizers were found not to be resins or plastic materials by themselves, and they were also not shown to fall within the heading applied by the department.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classifiable under Heading 38.01/19(6) and not under Heading 39.01/06; the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the commercial and technical understanding of the goods is material, and a plasticizer is not to be treated as a resin or plastic material merely because it is used with resins.

---